frida_bridge_install

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states installation but does not mention side effects (e.g., network access, device modifications), required permissions, or idempotency. The description is too vague for an agent to understand the full impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. Still, it is efficiently structured for its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of 4 parameters (all undocumented), no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain return values, installation behavior, or how to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (bridges, bridge_root, save_optional, registry). The agent has no information on what values are expected or their roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly specifies the verb 'Install', the resource 'Frida 17 runtime bridge packages', and the method 'using official frida-pm'. This distinguishes it from siblings like frida_bridge_status (status check) and frida_package_install (more generic).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., frida_package_install), no prerequisites, no mention of when-not-to-use. The single sentence lacks contextual usage advice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.